Except for the fact that they use numbers based on when he was elected and not when he took office.
That's dishonest from the get-go. What the **** was he supposed to do in November of 2008 when he wasn't in office?
Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
You'll note that by February 2009, unemployment had risen from 6.8% (not 6.7 as they claim in the article) to 8.2%.
Then, in the same damn article, they change the numbers from 6.8% to 7.9% in the very next graph.
Here's reality:
Obama
02/2009 - 8.2%
11/2011 - 9.1%
Increase in unemployment: 11%
Reagan
02/1981 - 7.4%
11/1983 - 8.5%
Increase in unemployment: 15%
Let's look at the record of the president who actually oversaw the collapse of the economy:
Bush 2
02/2001 - 4.2%
11/2003 - 6.0%
Increase in unemployment: 43%
This is what reality is: using the same numbers and same standards to make a comparison. I find it ironic they include Carter (because many consider him the worst, and his policies led to the bad economy Reagan inherited); but completely ignore Bush (when, in reality, many consider HIM the worst, and his policies led to the bad economy Obama inherited).
The entire thing is disingenuous propaganda.
Propaganda may be "interesting". But it never holds up to scrutiny.
_______________
**Numbers comes from data.BLS.gov** link always goes to "data not available, but you can look them up for accuracy.